There’s been a lot of allegations made late in this proposal, Deli believes more time is required to iron this all out.

It seems like there are a lot of topics that require the team to double click into and clarify so that voters can make a more educated decision on how the team is best supported long term.

To me the product NNS and Nogs seemed to be a promising platform which could scale into other communities.

Voting FOR the team to consider a reset and working on a recovery approach.

No updates is not acceptable. One thing to be behind, another to not have the comms. Esp. for a chunk of change like that.

Yet another reason we should have streams/segregated funds in subDAOs that can be actioned by committee instead of the whole DAO.

While appreciating bcard resolution still many situations to clarify that this prop has highlighted before continuing

Did some blockchain auditing today and made some troubling discoveries.

the #1, #3, #4, & #8 Top Traders on $NOGS are all wallets controlled by dotnouns.

Collectively, these 4 wallets have sold $152.35k thousand dollars worth of $NOGS.

#1 is one of the teams Prize wallets, used to hold NFTs for the raffle

#3, 4, & 8 were all funded by the Prize wallet.

there are 5 other wallets in the top 12 traders who all off ramped crypto to the same MEXC, & Coinbase deposit addresses used by dotnouns.eth & nogs.eth.

An Arkham Intel Bubblemap & etherscan links can be found at this HackMD:
https://hackmd.io/@imwylin/rJxEqN9nJg

Votes from the Nouniverse ⌐◨-◨

Every $NOGS holder now has a voice in deciding how the NOGS pool of Nouns votes on each Nouns proposal.

Cast your vote on your Noggles Dashboard, earn more $NOGS!

FOR: 36.29M $NOGS
AGAINST: 494.70M $NOGS

177120 $NOGS have been shared among the voters.

GAAAAAAAAAAAA

Had to sit on this prop for a while but ultimately decided to vote FOR due to the reasons outlined below.

Here are a few points I want to address:

SharkDAO has been largely inactive, yet the Prop 711 team managed to persuade a single member of our multisig (1/5 hotwallet) to vote FOR this proposal, despite SharkDAO having abstained from voting on almost every other proposal in the past year. Although the proposal passed via Snapshot, I personally don't believe SharkDAO should selectively vote based solely on individual multisig member interests. It should either vote consistently on all proposals or not at all. This selective voting subsequently appeared to influence 0xjanedoe's decision, as their VWR explicitly referenced SharkDAO’s engagement on the prop. I was disappointed with how hard the 711 team pushed SharkDAO and individual members to receive these votes.

I find it odd that esports was mentioned in the propdate, given how sparse communication has been between our projects. After Prop 711 passed, I proactively reached out to their team to collaborate. However, their response was a suggestion for our esports team to purchase 7 ETH (1 billion NOGS) to set up a delegation program, which felt inappropriate since both our projects are funded by Nouns. Just nine days ago, they reached out again this time wanting to purchase our merch for the noggles club and proposing to delegate esports (and other communities) 500M NOGS each specifically to counter the "AGAINST EVERYTHING" voting block. So this is the extent of our collaboration and plans at the moment. We initially discussed potential collaboration back in April 2024, which ended with them saying "let me dive into the esports mint and create some ideas." However, no collaborative follow-up occurred for essentially nine months until after Prop 711 passed. Most interactions I've had with their team have been centered around requests for vote-related support on their proposals. All this being said, if the project continues receiving DAO backing, we (esports) will do our best to collaborate and support.

I've always been uneasy about the inconsistent distribution model for NOGS. Some nounish communities have received tokens seemingly for free, while others have been required to pay. Still others appear to have been entirely overlooked.

Let me start off my saying I love what DotNouns has created thus far, anyone who has financially benefit from $NOGS of course would say that.... but with that being said I am voting for this proposal for the following reasons: - The line items in the proposal are budgeted for on a monthly basis, which is great.... but as of now almost 3 months in there has not been an additional developer hired ($7k per month x 2.5 = $17,500), there has been a lack of community & content ($3k per month x 2.5 = $7500) and the reason given for that was because the community manager has been busy training the ai agent, which is fine if responsibilities shift, but there is more than enough budget to have those line items still complete.... also there is budget for Noggle Club & Marketing ($4k x 2.5 = $10,000) which there have been raffles, but having the community manager win the majority of the prizes does not help to build community or make anyone want to participate (yes this was addressed that it will not happen moving forward, but still it's a valid point to make) My thought is, if this proposal passes the team should regroup and re-propose a proposal with more defined goals, deliverables and KPI metrics.... again I love the team and this is nothing personal, I just believe the days of 'let them cook' have gotten us into this current mess but we have the opportunity to change things in this very moment with this proposal, and I think we should. Again it's nothing personal. Also, other DAOS release payments in milestones where someone reviews the progress for completion before releasing future payments, so it's not that crazy of a concept to have a bit of oversight on things Also I am in the belief that is we are funding software, the DAO should have access to the code similar to Prop House (https://github.com/prop-house/prop-house-monorepo) that way if the developers decide to move on to a different project in the future we can pick up where they left off so we are not accumulating more debt tech and sunken costs..... I've tried looking for a link to the GitHub repo but can not find it.

I don't hate this prop as a wake up call to better updates though. Propdates isn't really cutting it anymore. Not sure if Matty is around either, or if his tenure ended. Need someone like him to track status and report back to DAO

I'm voting "for" to bring attention to this issue, knowing that my vote likely won't result in the prop passing given the existing votes.

I think accountability for proposers is extremely important, and actions like this to cancel a stream when things aren't going as planned is something I would like to see more of.

On this particular issue, I don't know enough about the background details to say if the stream should be canceled or not, but if further scrutiny shows that it is warranted, then I am very much in favor of it happening. (And if it gets canceled but then things improve, it can always be started again!)

trying to add weight on the other side and normalize voting FOR canceling a stream. have we ever cancelled a stream? (probably did but not anything remotely ambiguous or consequential is my guess). this is my criticism of the view that streams are a big fix towards accountability. we almost never cancel
them and anyone raising the possibility of doing so gets so much hate and criticism that you’d be crazy to raise the thought publicly unless the team has completely abandoned the project. i don’t know all the details here but feel comfortable voting for cancelling since i’ve always been consistently skeptical of the execution with this team. there’s always a trend of communication and engagement flaring up around proposal time and the execution and results feeling shallow or self serving from my eyes. that’s just me though and admittedly i’m not as close to the dao these days as i used to be.

I don't think it's the right step to make a proposal right away!
There is already a topic menu to discuss first between proposers and funding recipients.

I think cancelling this entire stream might be overkill for a couple of line items being under delivered at a quarter of the way through.
I support giving Dom/NNS more time to rectify everyone’s concerns. And I think he will take this seriously and do his best to fix the situation.

Maybe each line item on bigger props could be established as separate streams.

Against - Wins

FOR - 10 VOTES

AGAINST - 18 VOTES

ryanmac.eth | *"I have reviewed the situation, and it appears that the issue originated from NOGS voting against a specific proposal. This sets a concerning precedent, especially since it can arise from baseless accusations. We have observed similar occurrences in NOUNS, where personal emotions lead to such outcomes. This is troubling, and we owe Dom an apology for allowing this matter to reach a vote.

• RyanMac"*

ABSTAINS - 5 VOTES

rome wasn't built in a day. that said, agree that the progress and communication leaves much to be desired based on what was promised and paid for so far.

voting nay on this prop to give NNS more time to deliver (and communicate) and to rectify the situation with Bcard.

while accountability matters, nns labs has demonstrated ecosystem impact with NOGS, LP growth, and new revenue streams. innovation takes time—better to address concerns transparently than pull funding mid-stream. let’s course-correct without crippling momentum.

FOR 0 VOTES

AGAINST 86 VOTES

otterfodder.eth | "Read through the various comments on the prop, seems to be mostly due to miscommunication / lack of communication. Personally would like to see more updates from all props as its very rewarding for all parties to see the impact the DAO and the builders are responsible for."

ABSTAIN 0 VOTES

Bullish on Topics and seeing some early signs of momentum. This proposal requires way to much dm'ing and backchanneling to make any sense of the bullets. Without that, combined with its tone and style just looked like an attack. We should hold projects accountable and set a high expectation of communication. I still don't have any real details around these allegations but had this started as a Topic, we would all be making a more informed decision. Topics are also a useful way to outline and discuss what our expectations are for a passed proposal or even a specific project.

unclear how proposal 711 emphasizes noun o clock as an internet-wide celebration, in fact I would go as far as saying it does the opposite; for these reasons am OK cancelling stream (+ social capital is overrated, prefer to prioritise honesty).

Though I'm unhappy with the BCard situation, this forces the proposers to be held accountable. I guess the stream mechanism is doing its job just by having the possibility to do this.

This also opens the door and sets a precedent for decerning when a proposer is/isn't delivering. Perhaps streams must be tied to quality propdates like Flows does, idk.

Too much history for me to vote on this, I like Links and as a fellow brown dad I trust him. I also understand trying to find pmf and tokens are hard. Staying out of this one.

In the final update in November 2024 (https://www.updates.wtf/prop/473), NNS Labs acknowledged a lapse in community engagement/communication due to a development-focused shift and pledged to prioritize communication, direct quote: "Going forward, we’re committed to making community engagement and communication top priorities." However, recent observations indicate persistent shortcomings:

• The Discord community has been totally inactive throughout the year.
• The Farcaster channel primarily functions as a raffle feed, lacking substantive interaction.
• Collaborative efforts from myself to emphasize "noun o'clock" have been met with minimal reciprocity, with suggestions limited to me sharing the NFT raffle frame (you came back to me on an idea I had last year only after I raised these communication concerns with you this month).
• The bCard project, previously highlighted as the number 1 “key accomplishment” in the November update, has not been mentioned since, and actually now appears to have been a net-negative for nouns, due to bad communication.
• The "nogs" meme has not gained traction, correlating with declining token value and reflecting inadequate community engagement and communication.
• The announcement of "nogs & esports integration" is a surprise to me, first I have heard of it, again due to bad comms.

Running theme here - these issues suggest a continued disconnect between NNS Labs' stated priorities and their execution, clearly highlights the need for improved community involvement/communication and transparency, thus warranting this discussion/proposal imho.

I’ve supported this project since day one, was one of the largest NNS holders and have always provided brutally honest feedback to the team which they've appreciated. The project has strayed a long way from the NNS core product, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but were we expected to bag hold nogs to zero whilst receiving no updates, no community initiatives and constant shift of focus with no public comms?

Hoping community leave vwrs, treat it as a topic if you like, and hopefully this proposal normalises regular updates and open communication.

cheers

Been struggling to articulate what PPD and Toady said. Happy I can revote.

This proposal could have been an email.

This proposal is inappropriate and would be more appropriately discussed in 'Topics.'

Streamed payments are a valuable tool that fosters trust between proposers and the DAO. However, this proposal achieves the opposite effect, discouraging future proposers from utilizing them.

Let them build.

there seems to be too much 🌶️happening behind the scenes with this proposal, choosing to abstain and watch things unfold.

PizzaDAO Governance Crew ABSTAINS:
"I'm in favor, contrary to my peers." - Don Scrimmy John
"In principle I would support actions like this, but I'd like more detail in the proposal and potentially a reward for the fiscally conservative proposer." - Enzo Pepperoni
"Go DAOs!" - Pepperoni Lupin
"⌐◨-◨!" - Peas
"Los nuuunnnss!" - Don Malbec
"I was never given a name." - Sardines
"I would abstain because I don't like nouns." - Don Crab

With a generous allocation of $16,000 per month dedicated to fostering community growth, it seems only fitting that we should not be compelled to rely on direct messages to stay informed or discern the unfolding events.

I kinda agree with both points.

Showing active proposals that we still care and wait for updates and we want them to not grab the bag a run away, this prop is like a call of attention for those ones to keep the whole DAO updated by showing their will of continue building and honor the agreement.

But I do think we dont have the need of cutting the stream as this prop may serve as a warning for them.